The Victorian Police investigation into the Julia Gillard / Bruce Wilson AWU fraud scandal is as good as dead and buried. At least as far as Julia Gillard being charged is concerned and it is highly unlikely the police will even try to interview her. The key reason for this is Ralph Blewitt and his association with the complainant, Michael Smith, and the former lawyer Harry Nowicki.

To understand why we need to put ourselves in the police’s position and the obvious defence that Julia Gillard would run if she was charged. There is a chance that Bruce Wilson could be charged for what he did in relation to the AWU Reform Association fraud but that is probably unlikely now as well, although Mr Wilson might have other matters to answer in Western Australia.

The reason I know this is just by looking at the key witnesses and their credibility which would be near on zero if it ever hit court. Gillard would play the game of not giving evidence herself and go on a full frontal attack of the witnesses credibility and they would have plenty to work with as you will see. This would cast a dark shadow over any credible witness and evidence and make it highly unlikely that a jury would convict. That is what the police would be looking at.

Once Gillard’s legal team had destroyed the witnesses credibility they would lay as much blame as they could on Ralph Blewitt. Firstly though they would tie in Blewitt with Harry Nowicki and Michael Smith and their backgrounds and motives and try to make out a case that they had influenced Ralph Blewitt to lie to get Julia Gillard.

Let’s look at some of the evidence that would come out in court and how it would play out in court. And remember that Ms Gillard and her advisors are well aware of everything that is written below.

Background

I will assume that you know most of the background to the Julia Gillard / Bruce Wilson AWU fraud. If not, I have set up a page with the posts that I have done on the matter. (Click here to go to the page)

Mr Nowicki is a key player and is the one who brought Ralph Blewitt to Australia.

In 2001 Mr Nowicki was found guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer and fined $15,000 in a matter that related to him ripping off a personal injury client $20,000. From reading the judgement Mr Nowicki also perjured himself in an affidavit to the Supreme Court of Victoria although he apparently perjured himself unknowingly. It says in the judgement in relation to Mr Nowicki at paragraph 36 “Certainly, a failure to look at the file note or failure himself to carry out the sort of independent investigations which would have led him to the truth and revealed the falsity of the affidavit are the sort of matters that proper discharge of professional duty requires.” Not a good look for a lawyer and one who has helped Mr Blewitt with his police statements. (Click here to read the judgement)

Mr Nowicki’s background is important as Julia Gillard would without a doubt subpoena Mr Nowicki as a witness if she was charged. Julia Gillard would have numerous grounds to do so, the first being that Mr Nowicki has paid for Ralph Blewitt to come to Australia and I believe his legal fees. Then add the fact that Mr Nowicki helped Mr Blewitt with his police statements then that would be enough to subpoena him.

Mr Nowicki said in an ABC interview: I’m the first person who has actually shown him documents. He’s read them and that’s refreshed his memory. So he is basing his statement on documents which refresh his memory.

So he’s then going to see the Victorian Fraud Squad and will cooperate with them in making a without prejudice statement that can’t be used to incriminate him.

and when asked “Who are the targets here?” Mr Nowicki said “Well there’s no targets. This is a case where really the facts and the true situation about events that occurred are very, very obscure. So there’s no target.”(Click here to read more)

It blew me away when I read that. Once Mr Nowicki said he showed Ralph Blewitt the documents and that Ralph Blewitt based his police statement on seeing those documents Mr Nowicki was always going to be called as a witness to test exactly what he did or didn’t show Ralph Blewitt and if he helped him any further. As a lawyer Mr Nowicki had to know this. There is no attorney-client privilege between Mr Nowicki and Mr Blewitt as another lawyer is representing Mr Blewitt, not Mr Nowicki.

Mr Nowicki said there is “no target”. The are many problems with that statement. Firstly Mr Nowicki and Ralph Blewitt are closely aligned with Michael Smith and he clearly has a target, that being Julia Gillard. Then there are little things that might seem small but all add up in a juries mind. For example in an interview with the ABC it was pointed out to Ralph Blewitt that on his Facebook page he likes a group called “Julia Gillard – Worst PM in History.”

Mr Nowicki says he has been researching the AWU for a book he is writing. So he has a financial motive to see Ralph Blewitt’s testimony to be as explosive as possible as it would sell more books. He says that “one chapter will be the rise and fall of Bruce Wilson in the AWU” (Click here to read more) Nowicki seems to have gone to a great effort and expense for one chapter.

Michael Smith – The vendetta

Under normal circumstances there would be nothing wrong with Mr Smith to use his website to bring Julia Gillard to justice. But the circumstances are not normal. Mr Smith made a complaint to the police (Click here to read) based largely on the evidence of Ralph Blewitt and Ian Cambridge. Michael Smith lost his job at 2ue because he was trying to do a story on Julia Gillard and the AWU fraud and I have no doubt Julia Gillard had an influence in that so he is hardly unbiased. (Click here to read the post) Mr Smith would be a witness and has continued a close association with Ralph Blewitt.

There is evidence a mile long showing or at the least enough to strongly imply that Michael Smith has a vendetta against Julia Gillard. Julia Gillard’s barrister would play heavily on his vendetta and his association with Ralph Blewitt.

For example just yesterday Michael Smith did a 22 minute voice recording on his site making out the criminal case against Julia Gillard which he titled: “I did nothing wrong” Julia Gillard, AWU Scandal. I stake my reputation on the proposition that you did.(Click here)

As a former police officer Michael Smith would have known once he made the complaint to the police he should have stayed right away from Ralph Blewitt because they are both witnesses. Mr Smith should also have stopped using his website to make out his case against Julia Gillard once he had made the complaint because it makes it look like he is trying to influence the police investigation and any potential jury. In some cases the complainant might not be called as a witness, but given Mr Smith’s history with Julia Gillard it is not too hard to realise that he would be defiantly be witness as Gillard would subpoena him.

Michael Smith has also used his site to build up the credibility of Ralph Blewitt and give him encouragement. For example Mr Smith did a post titled “Character. The measure of the man.” about Ralph Blewitt and said in relation to Mr Blewitt “As grandmum would say, a man of character.” (Click here to read) In another post Mr Smith encouraged readers to sendRalph Blewitt christmas cardsand did another post publishing anemail Mr Blewitt sent saying thank you. Once again it would be argued in court Mr Smith was trying to influence the police investigation and any potential jury.

Another major negative is that Michael Smith has close ties to the Liberal Party.

Political connections

Michael Smith set up his website Michael Smith News and the registered mailing address is the same as the Liberal Troll site Cando. Ms Gillard’s barrister would go right to town on this.

Liberal Party Senator George Brandis and National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce were guests at Michael Smith’s wedding. (Click here to read more) Both Senator Brandis and Senator Joyce have raised the AWU fraud scandal in parliament and have pursued the issue.

It must also be remembered that Senator Brandis is the one who made a complaint to the police in relation to Federal MP Craig Thomson and Michael Smith has made a statement to the police in relation to the Craig Thomson fraud.

Then there is infamous meeting between Ralph Blewitt, Michael Smith and Federal MP Julia Bishop. It is Ms Bishop who has been at the forefront prosecuting the case in parliament and in the media against Julia Gillard. Ms Bishop from memory chopped and changed her answers when she was caught out having the meeting. From memory she first said she bumped into him and later changed that to Michael Smith phoned her and asked her to meet Ralph Blewitt. On another time she said she was speaking to Michael Smith and he passed to the phone to Ralph Blewitt but she did not know it was Ralph Blewitt.

A quality Barrister would have a field day with Ms Bishop in the witness stand and it is almost guaranteed she would be called as a witness. She should have never gone anywhere near Ralph Blewitt because it gives the impression she might have influenced him. Whether she had or not is not important, just putting it in the jury’s minds that she might have is all that is needed.

Mr Smith is apparently in regular contact with the former Attorney-General Robert McClelland who is another person who had a falling out with Julia Gillard and has knowledge of the AWU fraud. Once again Mr Smith has used his site to say what a great man he is. Mr Smith did a post titled “Robert McClelland would make a great industrial relations commissioner – he’s a great man” (Click here to read)

Add that to Mr Smith saying what agood man Ian Cambridge is and you see a pattern of Mr Smith talking up the credibility of anyone who has come forward with evidence against Julia Gillard.

Michael Smith is the complainant and by the time Julia Gillard’s barrister was finished with him I have no doubt he would have the jury thinking Mr Smith was a man prepared to do anything to get Gillard, including polishing up the evidence and influencing Ralph Blewitt.

Ralph Blewitt

Mr Blewitt was involved in the AWU fraud with Bruce Wilson and as we know Julia Gillard was the lawyer and Mr Wilson’s then partner. Mr Blewitt is an admitted fraudster and thief for his role in the affair. He was always going to have a credibility problem. His association with Nowicki and Smith has dragged down his credibility further.

His sister would also probably be called as a witness given her interview with the Channel 7 News where she described as a scum bag out to destroy lives and wants the public to know the truth. She also alluded to plenty worse than that. (Click here to watch)

Other evidence damaged

There is sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie criminal case against Julia Gillard. An example being what she herself has said and how that contradicts with documented evidence. She should she thought she was setting up a slush fund but the document for incorporation says otherwise.

With all the evidence against Julia Gillard, Michael Smith has led in with the joker, Ralph Blewitt. One of the worst moves I have ever seen. Why would you? And then done further damage by continuing to try to prosecute the case on his website.

The political benefits for the Liberal Party seem to have been put to the front were Michael Smith has plenty of contacts and one might suspect will benefit after the next election with a cushy appointment. Cando are apparently already pushing forMichael Smith to be the Managing Director of the ABC.

The bottom line is by the time a barrister was finished with Ralph Blewitt and his association with Michael Smith and Harry Nowicki there would be a dark shadow cast over all the witnesses.

A jury would be hearing about Harry Nowicki’s financial interest in the case given he is writing a book and his own dodgy past in ripping someone off and lying in an affidavit. How Mr Nowicki has paid for Ralph Blewitt to come to Australia and how he has helped Mr Blewitt with the police statements.

The jury would also hear about the complainant having a vendetta against Julia Gillard, his political connections who have motive, the meeting with Ralph Blewitt and Julia Bishop and her ducking and weaving in relation to the meeting. How Michael Smith has already told his readership in effect that Julia Gillard is guilty of criminal conduct. How Michael Smith is talking up the credibility of the witnesses on his website and of the push by the Liberal Party troll site Cando for Mr Smith to be appointed the Managing Director of the ABC. The fact that Mr Smith is a former police officer and should know that witnesses should not talk to each before trial about the matter would also be raised plenty in court.

Then Mrs Gillard’s barrister would argue strongly that Michael Smith and Harry Nowicki have been influencing Ralph Blewitt to lie in his police statements for their own gain. Ms Gillard’s barrister does not have to prove this, just show it is a possibility to throw enough doubt into the juries minds about Ralph Blewitt’s credibility. Then the barrister would start laying as much blame as possible on Ralph Blewitt. Julia Gillard has already started using this strategy which I wrote about previously. (Click here to read the post) Ms Gillard has also starting attacking the link between Michael Smith, Ralph Blewitt and Julie Bishop.

These are the things that the police would be thinking about. How credible is the witnesses and will their credibility hold up in court. I say the credibility of Ralph Blewitt would be destroyed given the above and the fact he already had very little credibility to start with given his admissions of involvement in the fraud.

Where to now

The Victorian Police will either sweep it under the carpet themselves or refer it to the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions who will sweep it under the carpet. The reason being if it ever went to court it would an absolute circus and if I was a police officer or prosecutor I would not want name on the charge sheet. It could be a real career killer.

What should have happened and what should happen now is that everyone who has been investigating the AWU fraud should keep doing so then push for a Royal Commission when the Liberal Party comes to power which based on the polls and up and coming election is only a few months away. It is only by a Royal Commission that the full truth was ever going to come out as there are too many people who have stayed silent and will continue to do so.

Why write this post?

So we know where we are at and start mapping a path forward. Also as a learning curve so that any future complaints to the police are not butchered. If you are going to make a complaint to the police you need to do it right so if it is swept under the carpet you know where to lay the blame. It was also going to be a tough ask to get the police to do anything given the political nature of it. The police now have an easy out and justifiable one.

A sad thing is there is a possibility the police complaint might even help Julia Gillard. If the police sweep the matter, Ms Gillard might claim vindication and go to town on her accusers.

A lot of people have been investigating the AWU scandal for the right reason of getting to the truth and holding people to account. It is not for a few people to hijack it for their own agenda. The whole matter has turned into anotherMalcolm Turnbull / Godwin Grech Utegate affairwhere Malcolm Turnbull went to far and fast to try to bring down the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for his own political benefit.

Declaration. I do not like Michael Smith and wrote in my previous post why. Mr Smith has sent me a nasty email threatening defamation proceedings if I did not take down the post by Close of Business last Thursday. As you can see the post is still up. (Click here to read the post) That aside this post was always going to be written as I flagged it in my last post.

Make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Just click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donation page for banking details for direct bank transfer or sending a cheque. (Click here to go to the donation page)

If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click here to visit the website)

Read it again. In fact, read it many more times. I’ve done so and now think its one of Shane’s best posts yet. If you just want partisan opinions and gate-keeping there’s always Bolt Blog. If the Liberal Party is involved, then that’s the way it is, regardless of what you may wish for.

Agree with you Paul. I know all the negative posts are because they really do want to see Julia charged and gaoled. Well so do I, and I’m sure Shane does to. But at least Shane is willing to go out on a limb and make his prediction about what will end up happening, ie nothing. I do hope that Shane is wrong, but given the magnitude of the corruption involved and all the criminal mates present/installed throughout the entire system it IS possible that she may walk free. It’s not the first nor will it be the last time we see people get away with it.

I think it’s also ridiculous to point the finger at Shane and say that he is causing damage to any case against Julia. Do any of you think that Julia is this “young and naive” girl who doesn’t know everything already that Shane wrote?

A GREAT DEAL OF THE HATRED TOWARDS JULIA IS NOW MISGUIDED TOWARDS SHANE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE FEARS AND OPENLY STATED THAT SHE MAY NEVER BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME.

You know, this is all starting to reek of sour grapes. Perhaps you did give him a leg and help him over the fence.
To me you have now grabbed him by the ankle and pulled everybody down again. I have one of your t-shirts, i was glad to support you. However, now i’m not so sure. You are starting to come across as someone with an almighty chip on your shoulder.
I don’t have any particular loyalty to Michael Smith, but if you are wanting to screw any chance for Australia to see Gillard get her just desserts just out of spite… that doesn’t make you much of a man

We can deal with the truth or deal with fanatasy. The above post is why Julia Gillard will never be charged by the current police investiagtion and the focus moving foward needs to be on a Royal Commission.

but Shane thats just your opinion, Michael is going to keep fighting the good fight. You cant state what will happen.A lot of ppl are now put off with your attack on Michael…one thing he is NOT, is a liar.

Shane, you have forgotten….police deal in facts…not creibility…..there are enough factual evidence for a prosecution…but they wont go to court without tying up ALL loose ends…Gillard is running out of time…..its on our side

I’ve been an avid reader of KCA, Shane but not previously posted. But I ask, so what, Shane? Motive is irrelevent when reporting a crime. It’s evidence that counts. You’re in danger of doing yourself irreparable damage with your sour grapes attacks on all fellow reporters and bloggers. This story is bigger than you, Shane. A disturbingly bizarre post.

Who got to you Shane?
There is far, far more evidence other than that of these people, so why are you discounting it.
There is ample evidence for a prima facie case against Wilson and gillard, by her own admissions. The Slush Fund is illegal.

I was going to mention Bob Kernohan and other information but the post was getting too long. Once Gillard’s barrister was finished with Blewitt there would be a dark cloud hanging over all the evidence and other witnesses. I do believe that Bob Kernohan has met Ralph Blewitt recently. If that is the case then Gillard’s would also use that against Kernohan. It must be remembered that witnesses should not speak to each other about the case before it goes to court. Kernohan was always going to be attacked given he took $6,500 off Bruce Wilson in the early 1990’s which was from the stolen AWU money and even if the reason he took the money is credable some in the jury will wonder otherwise given his meeting with Blewitt.

None of these people are “witnesses before the Court.” There’s no case on foot yet, they can associate as they please. To suggest otherwise would mean that, in anticipation of some future court case, anyone with the slightest anticipation of legal proceedings would have to sort of go hermit- a clear absurdity.

Also the documents support charges, quite separately from any witness testimony.

The real concern about no charges being brought stems from the corruption and incompetence of the police forces involved, not the obsessions of Michael Smith or others.

Your right it is not currently befdore the courts. But that is where a lot of people would like it to go including Blewitt and Smith. That is why once the complaint was made they should have stopped communication as it was always going to used against them in court.

This is the most thought out reason why Julia Gillard will never be prosecuted for her doings while at Gordon & Slater.
I knew she would never be charged but didn’t understand why not. Now I know. Thanks Shane

Whether Gillard gets charged or not for her involvement in the AWU scandal her reputation as an honest and reliable citizen will remain with her forever
Australians have a queer attitude towards crooks –we make them heros ,like Ned Kelly Graham Richardson ,Kevin Thomson and Big Eddie Obede

Once the enquiry is over Juliar will probably sink back into oblivion with her toyboy and the millions she has fraudulently obtained and claim to be that sweet little girl her mother idealised

Most women who get into a relationship with a married man receive some form of gift or payment.probably to compensate for the guilt they are experiencing
Julia Gillard accepted Bruce Wilson’s gifts the same as most other women would .
Being the person Ms Gillard is ,her sixth sense would have known that whatever she received did not come from clean hands
She had helped her lover set up a new method of collecting monies and consequently he was .gifting some of it back to her for the help she had given him
Naturally her employer Slater and Gordon were not ever meant to be informed.
You have to wonder where the relationship would have gone if the fraud had not been exposed.

What you have really described here is not that a suspected crime has gone unchallenged in court because of the character of the witnesses involved but you have \
clearly outlined that in the adversarial system of law finding out the truth is definitely not the aim.
You have confirmed that the purpose of the court is to let two sides (if not more) battle it out with whatever weapons they have ( rather like Roman gladiators) and the strongest, not the truth wins.
It is the court system that we currently have that allows injustice to prevail.
That will only be realised when we have fewer lawyers in our government and replaced with a balanced representation from our society.

Your right but it is not in the courts yet. What you say is happening now before going to any court. I suppose their is more money to be made and gravy train jobs to be made out of butchering the truth. The citizens lose again!

Where have you established that this is a “Godwin Grech” moment? In that case here was no documentary evidence – the document was a fake.

In this case there are reams of documentary evidence which have not been contested and which you have conceded and it is this that will sink her. All the rest is distraction and sideshow. There will be highly credible witnesses such as Nick Styant-Browne, Olive Brosnahan, Ian Cambridge, Robert McClelland and even a number of AWU officials who had direct knowledge of what went on. Gillard will try to muddy the waters all she likes but it will not erase the established facts. That is what justice demands.

Let the matter take its course.

Even in her latest interview with Ben Fordham Gillard was at her evasive best. She showed all the hallmarks of a shonky lawyer in the crafted answers she gave. This matter will be decided on the facts. Lets hope that it is concluded soon.

Below is what I said in the postThe whole matter has turned into another Malcolm Turnbull / Godwin Grech Utegate affair where Malcolm Turnbull went to far and fast to try to bring down the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for his own political benefit.

I too am disappointed to read the latest Blog. I follow “Michael Smith” as well. His expectations are totally different from what I have just read. I am disillusioned or perhaps young & naive enough to still believe in truth & justice and the man who wore the red cape and jumped buildings in a single bound. Time will tell, I hope your wrong on this occassion.

It would apear by your report Shane that the worst Prime Minister in Australian history has turned out smarter than all the chasers, I said in an earlier comment that I thought she would get away with the scandal and so I believe will all the others including Shorten curlies. When she gets kicked out at the coming election she will be laughing all the way to the bank with her half a million per annun pension and no doubt sticking her grubby fingers up at all the people who tried to nail her and watch when Craig Thomson walks, I hope that the HSU are proud of him and the members remember to send him birthday cards. Allan from Myalup WA

Shane. Nothing you, Michael Smith, Ralph Blewitt, any lawyer or barrister or anyone else can say, write or do, can alter the substantive facts. If a case ever comes before the court, the evidence given by any witness will be carefully assessed and due weight given to all the circumstances, but nothing can alter the substantive facts.

Julia Gillard will do anything and everything possible to avoid a court case as Discovery of Documents would reveal everything needed to make her position indefensible.

You sorely misjudge the motives of many who are doing their best in trying to restore some honour, integrity and accountability into the political, judicial, academic, journalistic and other professions where required. It is not a “Get” Gillard campaign and as such, transcends politics. It is about the future of Australia and how we want to leave it for generations yet to come.

IMHO, you have done a great disservice to their cause, yourself and Australia in general with this latest unnecessary and seemingly iresponsible rant . It would perhaps be wise in future for you to try not to allow your personal bias, likes and dislikes to warp your better judgment and to consider the damage such attacks as this can have on what should be a concerted effort to achieve a better Australia.

Another very sad day, especially to see so much of your previous good work undone in this manner! I just do not understand what you hoped to achieve!

Hillbilly you say “If a case ever comes before the court, the evidence given by any witness will be carefully assessed and due weight given to all the circumstances”. You have to be joking. You need to have a better look around this site. The courts are a street fight between two sides and almost anything goes and most judges are corrupt as they come and are clear political appointments.

You say “You sorely misjudge the motives of many”. I do not think so and time will tell.

You say: “Another very sad day, especially to see so much of your previous good work undone in this manner! I just do not understand what you hoped to achieve!”

I do not think my previous work has been undone. No matter what happens from here we have managed to rattle a Prime Minister and get her past in the mainstream media and all over social media. We might not hold Gillard to account but the message has been sent loud and clear to other corrupt people in the government and judiciary etc, this is what happens if you act in a corrupt manner, you will be outed if not held to account.

Hi Shane. I’m fully aware of the vagaries of the court system, having personally fought and beaten lawyers who were tacitly, if not actively backed by an apathetic Law Society, allegedly trying to protect “the good name of the profession”. I did that by finding and exposing such irrefutable evidence there was no escape from the facts for the guilty parties. Justice was obtained for a person who had been grievously wronged, but I had to accept that under “the system” you describe, I could not get the guity ones jailed,

However, I pursued them beyond the trial and made sure they were held to account and shamed before their peers in the profession. That was sufficient for me, to provide an example and deterrent to others!

I offer the following with the best intentions and for what it’s worth, I feel your opinions would have a far more positive impact if you weren’t prone to rush to judgment and label everyone who upsets you or with whom you have a bad experience, whether in the judiciary or elsewhere, a criminal, a fraudster and /or a crook. IMHO, this approach is more in line with a Gillard/McTernan “shoot the messenger” tactic, and is not always the case,

Though I know you think differently, as is your right, on all the considerable evidence available to me, Ian Walter Cambridge is just one example. No man in the face of combined efforts by many involved to criminally conceal the truth, could have unearthed and documented more evidence, or done more to try and right this terrible wrong and restore faith in the union movement. The fact he has now again voluntarily come forward and offered to co-operate fully with any investigation, speaks volumes about his integrity and commitment.

As you say, time will tell, but I do hope that you have now got rid of whatever bile, hurt or frustration you had, or felt, and can get back to what you do best, and that is, be a great source of information for those seeking the truth.

Your last paragraph very eloquently sums up what should be the focus of everyone involved in this combined effort to “Clean up Australia”, and I trust you and all supporters of whosoever is trying to bring this about, will hold that thought foremost in your minds.

I wish you well personally, and also all others pursuing this vital endeavour.

I am not bitter at all. Some people want to cling to the false hope that Gillard will be charged which does no one any good. Need To face up to the truth and move ahead with a plan which is to drive for a Royal Commission or judicial enquiry. We also need to learn from the mistakes for the future as I said in the post.

Shane, I totally agree with Hillbilly. I know we have both followed the story intently right from the beginning and it seems to me you are writing and expressing an OPINION that seems to say more about your personal feelings towards others and as such you have demeaned yourself in my eyes. You don’t know anything for sure. The cops may know far more than you think. They deal in facts and documents and all the other things that go to make a case. There is so much for them to investigate and Gillard could have committed many crimes along the way, never expecting at the time that she would one day be PM and that this could all come back to bite her. You have written this from a highly subject and personal point of view and it seems to stem from some anger you have against Michael Smith. I think it is a shame that you have gone down this path as it adds nothing to the facts and unfortunately, like the others here, has reflected badly on yourself for even writing this piece.

It seems to me that the KANGAROO COURT has been bought out by the LABOR PARTY?to put this story out in the public area?YOU are trying to stump the evidence before it goes to court,what are you gaining from the LABOR PARTY by doing this SHANE? as you said all the evidence is comming from you ,but you did get something wrong in your story,MICHAEL Smith didn’t tell people to sent RALPH BLEWITT a christmas card,BLEWITT did and he told them to send it to the man that was bashed in the AWU,BOB KOKOBAN.Seeing that you stated that MICHAEL SMITH pinched all your AWU evidence,you must be in the same boat as him seing it suppose to be your evidence.Another person with good intensions has been bought by the labor party to shut the awu scandal down!Shame on you!

I agree with that since the ashby case, it does give weight to your argument about weight on the credibility and process. However remember what happened too justice enfield. The evidence ultimately won out. The credibility by the continual denial saw him gaoled. Too me it will all come down too the proof of where gillard and blewett were on the day the poa was purported too be signed. Everything else becomes a sideshow.

Sorry Shane iv always enjoyed reading your posts as well as Michaels and yes Larrys. I find Michael to be a man of integrity and i dont like your personal attacks on him. Seems like you did with Larry, regardless of whatever you say hes guilty of, its sour grapes. Why not just get back to the main game that brought everyone together in pursuit of justice. Now you seem to be trying to debunk anything Michael prints, not good.

I can’t believe you people! Shane has always written this way, without fear or favour, and that is what we like about this site. May I remind you that it was Michael Smith, and his opinion about this site, that started this. People were asking his opinion about some of the posts on this site, and it would have been prudent if Michael had replied to them privately, which he has admitted. I may not agree with everything Shane has said in this post, but there’s a lot I do agree with. And I honestly believe that Shane would have written this last post, regardless of what has been written previously. He calls it how he sees it.

I agree with Shane. The cold hard reality of our long-corrupted political and legal systems ensure that Gillard will never face any kind of justice. Think of just about everything that’s happened over the last 20 years. How many legal cases have been mounted? Utegate? Australia day riot? Slipper? Queensland constitution changes (how many of you even know what Beattie did back in the early 2000s)?. They know they are untouchable because they are actually outside the system, governing us who are stuck inside.

You’ve still got my support Shane. If the defamation thing from Smith ever gets off the ground, (and I very much doubt it), I’ll be putting my money where my mouth is in supoport of you.
If everyone on this site wrote to their MP’s to press for a Royal Commission as you suggest, we may get a more satisfactory outcome all round.

Shane going by some of the posts you are been treated like a whistleblower! I have been there and know the words and style they use. This post has definitley exposed some people for who they really are.

You make some interesting comments here- I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, some have merit and may be a problem in any action against Gillard et al in a law court, knowing from personal experience the adversarial nature of the the criminal courts.

We all agree, I think, that, from the evidence uncovered and not yet uncovered, there appears to be a prima face case against Wilson, Blewitt and other associates (which may include Gillard). As for a cover-up, the Hansard extract from Bob Smith (the “if Cambridge is not stopped,we’re all history” comment) would point to the genesis of a cover-up which goes right through to the present-day missing AWU/WRA files (x3) and which would be critical in indicting Gillard for the crime of aiding and abetting a fraud.
And, in agreement, a royal commission would be a likely vehicle to snare the lot of them.
If Gillard ever got to court on a criminal charge, especially if it occurred after a humiliating electoral defeat (can’t see any case happening before the election), it would be difficult to get 12 good men/women and true not to have sympathy for her.

My thoughts go back to the alleged “dodgy” financial dealing of Teirath Khemlani and Arab loans affair involving alleged kickbacks to Rex Connor (Energy minister under Whitlam) in 1975.These were the “reprehensible circumstances” Fraser used to justify a double dissolution which eventually enabled Whitlam to be tossed out. Whatever happened to those allegations- as far as I can recall, nobody was charged or went to court. It served its political purposes?

This AWU/WRA case may go the same way- use it for political gain then say after an election, that the results of the election are punishment enough for the perpetrators- which will only encourage it all to happen again.

Other than a few question time points, the Opposition haven’t really made a great deal out of the AWU/WRA affair other than using it as an example of how the PM is not only joined umbilically to the AWU and the broader union movement,and,like their dodgy dealings (including the Thompson saga) she’s tarred with the same brush dipped in the spittle of faceless men.

But lets not forget, if Gillard had not broken some fundamental rules of professional ethics her opponents wouldn’t have been able to make political mileage out of the AWU/WRA affair and if she had not lied to the Australian about the CO2 Tax et al.
her and Labor would not be in such a dire predicament- she’s the author of her own and the ALP’s destiny.
The only problem is that her and her union mates are trashing and will probably kill off what was once and still has the potential to be a great Australian political institution.

I agree with you as to the potential for this to “disappear” in whole or part when it is seen to not be of “political” importance.

In fact it has already occurred once with this very issue in 1996, when the claimed “man of honour” Ian Cambridge demanded a Royal Commission, only to then presumably decide on reflection from the Bench that no action at all was needed.

And the Howard Government thought this was all very satisfactory.

All of which shows quite clearly that what average Australians think of as a cancer undermining the country is considered normal and acceptable by both/all sides of the political fence. And presumably by the Judiciary.

Its a shame to see 2 good guys both fighting for the same cause. Throwing these schoolboy hissy fits will not achieve anything .There can be no doubt that Gillard has matters to answer and everyone believes and knows she is guilty
Why you have to analyse the reasons she may escape justice completely blows me and my wife away .Let the woman and her lawyers work it out and if they cant then all the better .She desrves to feel the wrath of the law because she once worked within its confines
Stop your bitching and be like other decent Aussies and wait for the law to catch her

Listeners to 4BC Brisbane might remember Michael Smith led a vendetta against Gabe Watson, the man from Alabama, whose wife died in a scuba incident. I felt he was wrong on that one. I have been pleased that he has published so much material surrounding the AWU scandal, but I wonder how much longer this can go on. Shane what you have posted throws a lot of light on certain aspects.

I think Shane is just trying to say it as it is, not what we would all like to see happen. All the negative posts about Shane’s latest Gillard /Wilson saga seems to show that there is an awful lot of total frustration with the very corrupt Labor/Gillard government. I to was disappointed reading the latest blog but bashing up Shane won’t fix the real problem.
I hope the biggest jury in Australia in September will let Gillard know what they think of her, and wipe her out of the political landscape forever. She has to be the worst PM and labor party ever.

Reading through what you have written, and the responses, the overarching impression is that for many of the commentators what you have said is wrong: as in wrong in what motivates your comments, or wrong to have made points that they take to be damaging the case against the AWU/Gillard/others, or mostly both.

Beyond that, many seem incapable of even considering that the points you raise as to the likely successful prosecution of a case or cases, might be relevant. Even though you clearly state that you are not viewing this from the point of view of what “should be” but, given the nature of such things, what you perceive to be “what is”. That is, with no illusions, at least as you see it.

You may well be wrong, or you may well be partially right as to the effect of the things you mention.

What is beyond doubt, surely, to anyone at all, is that this will be presented by Gillard/AWU/others as being “political” and that they will exploit any opportunity to do so.

What is also beyond doubt to anyone at all familiar with lawyers and the law is that what is apparently clear will be obscured by any means possible.

A great many people posting here need, I think, to retain faith in the idea that “truth will out” and that obvious moral culpability can be seen and judged, in this case as criminal behaviour. And it is clearly true that that is a faith essential to existence.

But push come to shove, beyond people’s every day life, that is not true in practice. Which ultimately is what this whole thing is about.

This is not an easy thing for anyone to face, and virtually everyone will find reason to avoid doing so, with explanations to themselves, or allowing excuses that paint any particular thing as an aberration, a mistake.

Anyone who looks coldly and without illusion at the functioning of the systems of law and politics (and others including media) in Australian society will automatically be seen as unbalanced by many, or just uncomfortably inconvenient. It is required that there be the “good guys” regardless of whether they exist or not.

So I have no strong conclusive opinion on any or all of what you have said above. Whilst I might very well have hopes for certain things, this does not mean they will happen. I think you raise points that have a clear basis in the reality of how things actually work, and it remains to be seen how this plays out.

Longer term, as this whole saga has shown, the ability of people with different emphasis’s, approaches, and opinions to showcase them as you – and Michael Smith – have done is the single most vital element for anyone concerned with having truth established and accountability applied. In anything.

Shane, it takes time for some but I have had the same thoughts about micheal for some time , not to put him down his trying hard but u are on the money wish u both well will support u both as we should noel

I am one of the people who considers this to be a hugely impressive post, Shane. While I unfortunately don’t have the time to read all your posts, of the many that I have read, this one, for many reasons, is a true standout.

First is the fact that It appears to me that you personally have nothing to gain by posting what you likely would have known to be observations that may upset or even offend some people. (to quote one of those who just don’t get it: “OMG you are so bitter”)

I have long noted your courage in speaking out, but this post demonstrates courage for a different reason. Other posts had the potential to anger powerful people, this post has the potential to anger, upset or even offend at least some of your own readers.

And it obviously has.

And they are, without doubt, both unjust and completely wrong in their judgments and reactions.

The fact that you went ahead and wrote the post anyway tells me that you place truth ahead of personal popularity.

And, God knows, in Australia – to its sorrow – there is a huge dearth of people willing to do that. Not just politicians, mind you, but even ‘ordinary’ people.

In my own work I have regularly told ‘complainants’ that if they don’t like the truths I present they they can go support someone whose lies, deceptions and cunning half-truths will make them feel good – Gillard being the most obvious candidate for such fools to follow.

What many readers fail to understand about these matters is that the complexity of human nature, plus the vagaries of the law, all combined with the tsunami of graft, corruption and immorality sweeping Australia, make it very difficult to make predictions that are 100% certain, 100% watertight.

But it is important that the most informed people do make predictions, as you have admirably done in this case. And, frankly, I’m a great deal more willing to place my bet on your prediction being closest to reality than I would be regarding the viewpoints of those who have criticised this latest column of yours.

One of Australia’s great problems is that the ‘average’ person – invariably coming from a place of ignorance on the particular matter – is far too opinionated and, consequently, far too incapable of being a ‘good follower’ when being a good follower would be their correct and ONLY place under the particular circumstances.

If I may use myself as an example, many will know that I assert rather strong ‘leadership’ qualities with regard to certain social issues. But, because I am willing to be honest and admit that I know – let alone understand – pathetically little about the matters which you address, Shane, I am completely willing to be a ‘good follower’ of yours rather than shouting off my ignorance-based opinions on what you have stated.

This does not, of course, mean that anyone should be a ‘mindless’ follower. But it certainly does mean that people (generally) need to be a lot more honest with THEMSELVES when answering the one question they need to regularly ask themselves before shooting off their mouths: how much do they REALLY know about the matter on which they wish to volunteer their opinion?

You have written an excellent analysis of the available facts, Shane, plain and simple.

But the excellence would only be obvious to those who, while not knowing all the facts, do have the ability (i.e. intelligence and experience) to recognise the complexities.

To the knockers I offer a favoured quote from a New York university professor: “intelligence is the ability to recognise truth in the absence of other clear evidence.”

When I got a computer about 18 mths ago I started following the news on it instead of buying a paper every day, then stumbled onto Bolt and through it a link to Kanga Court, then latter came pickering and then Smith. I have found the investigations into the AWU Affair intriguing, especially the input by bloggers, the likes of HillBilly , Black Swan & Treeman.

I like you and I like Michael Smith, but I do think Michael did you a disservice by criticising your posts about matters that he had previously paid little attention to. And you have responded in your normal hard hitting way. Good for you.

I also note that both you and Michael ask people to consider donating to your works.
Now I note that Michael has responded to your post with a picture you and skippy, down the beach, which really is a cheap shot, in a attempt to ridicule you.

Also I note that at the end of Michael’s post he states that the matter is now in the hands of his lawyers. Well that pulled me up a bit. Lawyers! more than one! Plural! And at the same time asking people to donate to the cause? Baffles me a bit.

There is nothing to be gained by intruding on each others turf, especially when you both belong to the same neighbourhood watch.

More power to you Shane, when I kick a goal next time, on the punt, you’ll be on my list.

Just to make sure I’m on topic, I also believe that there is no way that Gillard will be charged with anything. If Wilson goes to court over the AWU matter, then yes, Gillard could be involved, but until Wilson is charged, Gillard is scott free. How can you charge someone with a crime, when the beneficiary of the crime is not charged, and Wilson can only be charged upon complaint by the AWU or Thiess.
But at least it is out in the open.

Shane, looking through some of your previous posts, would it be true that you have also thieved other peoples work? Yes or No? And is that honorable? Yes or no? Remember when you started? Maybe you should both say something kind, to each other. Bury the hatchet, forgive and forget.

Terry, why don’t you cite the instances of Shane “thieving” other peoples work instead of just making insinuations? Shane has achieved one thing at least. If you have noticed Smith now no longer cut and pastes entire articles from behind the Australian’s paywall instead pasting a few paragraphs and then linking. The amount he posts is probably still more than could be judged fair usage but at least it’s a start.

This comment by DeeJay is worth analysing for the benefit of others who may then be motivated to re-think if they are of the same mind as deejay. A comment like this both angers and saddens me. Angry because it is so classical the style of how socialists think and react to anything that does not fit their perspective and sad because it is so widely prevalent in Australia – adding further evidence to my view that we are a communist nation in virtually all but name.

Deejay attacks Shane and (tall poppy syndrome/sickness alert!) seeks to ‘cut him down’. The underlying implication of the comment is that ‘Shane is wrong.’

Yet deejay offers no justification or credible reasoning for the attack on Shane’s work.

Worse, he doesn’t attack the facts or assertion, only the person – what is called an ‘ad hominem.’

That’s classic socialism – if you can’t offer a sensible rebuttal to an argument that contradicts your viewpoint, vilify the person.

All of Gillard’s infamous attack in the parliament on Abbott being a ‘misogynist’ was exactly the same kind of immoral approach to debate.

Bear in mind that we should presume ‘deejay’ is a conservative (or supposedly so), or he would probably not be reading Shane’s work anyway. Yet – assuming that logic is true – here we have a ‘conservative’ thinking exactly like a socialist.

Which is another scary reality applicable to far too many supposedly ‘conservative’ Australians.

The other error in deejay’s thinking – an error that further demonstrates ‘socialist-style’ thinking – is that it contains an implicit suggestion that it’s OK to (as the saying goes) “get into bed with the devil” in order to achieve what might be a mutual objective. That’s seriously flawed morality raising its ugly head.

Readers may recall that getting into bed with the Green devil is exactly what Gillard did, a fatal miscalculation that has, without doubt, virtually destroyed the Labor party and additionally resulted in her leaving a legacy of being remembered as not only Australia’s worst ever P.M. but also Australia’s worst ever political liar.

Such are the consequences of getting into bed with wrongdoers.

Let me hasten to say that I wouldn’t equate Michael Smith with “the devil’ – the term is being used metaphorically. Yet, in previous posts, Shane has presented very good reasons why every thinking person needs to take a very close look at what exactly Michael Smith attempting to achieve and how he is going about it.

I confess that, without Shane’s post, I too would have tended to have maintained a rose-coloured viw of Michael Smith. And I too would have been blinded by that paradigm.

The principle of not ‘getting into bed with wrongdoers’ is the crux of why properly-moral people are willing to anger others by addressing wrongdoing by people who are – in a manner of speaking – on the ‘same side.’

Just because someone is playing in your own footy team, and you are hoping to win the grand final, does NOT mean you should be willing to condone a deliberately wrongful tackle that leaves an opponent seriously injured. Or indeed condone ANY action that gives your team an unfair advantage, only so you can win the game. (to quote an ancient wisdom, “what does it help someone to win the world but lose his soul.”)

The principle applies to ALL aspects of life, including to debates such as these.

There are simply too many ‘deejays’ in our society who are willing to condone support of someone who has done the wrong thing. It is one of the core reasons why Australia’s moral values have been on the slippery slope and why we as a society are headed from hell – unless such thinking drastically changes.

This does not mean we should ‘condemn’ anyone on “our side” for wrongdoing. That decision depends on the extent of the wrongdoing. But, at the very least, we should let the wrongdoer know that we do not approve and will not condone or support the wrongdoing.

Which is of course what I am doing with deejay in this response.

This principle of at least ‘slapping on the wrist’ those on ‘our’ side for wrongdoing is yet another that separates properly-moral conservatives from immoral socialists.

Gillard again proves the point. We could well ask her what some people – like Peter Slipper and Craig Thompson – have to do before she would publicly stand against them. I fear the answer would be that even murder would not motivate condemnation from Gillard if that would jeopardise her own position of power.

Hopefully this response to deejay will give him and many others pause to re-think their attack on Shane’s column and their view that Shane should ‘kiss and make up’ with Michael Smith.

Oh, and by the way, one of the clearest signs of strong moral standards is a person’s willingness to openly admit wrongdoing and error and apologise.

Which is yet something else that is now virtually non-existent within our society.

Shane, as I’ve mentioned to you privately there is little if anything to be gained by trashing the reputations of others and the comments here are telling. One thing is for sure, time will be the judge as to whether you or Michael remain credible sources of information.

Treeman, perhaps you wrote this post before my two posts above were published. May I suggest that you (and others who might agree with your post) read those posts – or re-read them a lot more carefully. With a name like yours, you of all people need to be very careful about not seeing the wood for the…er…trees. Also, a general comment to those who STILL ‘approve’ of Larry Pickering by obviously STILL following his posts, despite Shane having so clearly – and correctly – shown the man up as being an immoral con-man. Do you ‘Larry Pickering supporters’ have no clue of what that says about your own (non-existent) moral standards? Sheesh!!!

I’m sure we’re all the wiser for your lengthy lecture in psychobabble dismissing some comments here as ‘socialist’ – which is so patronising and dismissive and denies readers the basic courtesy of respect for any opinion that ‘fails’ to reflect your own.

You are not above ad hominem attacks yourself are you?

Speaking for myself, I have no way of knowing whether Dowling or Smith (or even Pickering for that matter) is right in their very different approaches to the issue in question – time and the Justice System will determine that.

I DO know however, that in order to form a considered opinion, and to assess each new piece of information that arises in the matter at hand, it’s necessary to read each blog and comment as posted, evaluate it and draw some conclusions.

To subscribe to any of these blogs doesn’t necessarily make any of us “followers” as you assert because many of us consider ourselves to be ‘observers’ – offering comment when appropriate, learning from the very experienced comments of others and hoping to add something and learn from the debate.

You sir, can keep your psychoanalysis of readers to yourself. We are NOT dribbling mouth breathers with no capacity to think for ourselves simply because our opinions differ from yours, or Dowling’s or Smith’s.

The majority of us have never encountered the degree and depth of corruption that has seized control of the Administration of our Nation and we are all doing our best to understand its implications and how best we can deal with it, so do not dismiss readers as sycophantic, socialist “followers” of anybody – we are not. And by the way ……

It’s Dowling’s opinions we have come here to read, so keep your rambling drivel to yourself.

I do not have a comment policy page but need to do one soon. Disagreeing with others in fine. Saying such things as “rambling drivel” in relation to others is not, because the comment section will quickly turn into an abuse section as has happened before which adds no value to anything.

At the end of the day, a proper and full police investigation will only look at material facts, not merely the perceived credibility or alleged lack of credibility of witnesses. A complete liar and fraudster may well be able to prove material facts with documents, receipts, diary entries, bank statements, etc…. Much of that is well and truly a matter of public record. The truthfulness or otherwise of witnesses/plaintiffs/respondents may well be irrelevant except where the authenticity of a document is in question. But the Evidence Act, court rules and many other well practiced processes deal with that in a routine manner. It would ba a scandal for police NOT to try the AWU matter.

How many of you bagging Shane have gone across to Smith’s blog and called him out for starting the attack on Shane’s credibility but providing no evidence? And if you have tried, did your comment actually see the light of day or did “The Sauce” censor you?

Realist, I think you should be realistic about the difference between using and stealing, agreeing and disagreeing. Shane has not barred others from using his work, but he seems to take offence with those who disagree with his analysis, and in some cases, he seems to read more into their opinion than the simple fact that the other disagrees.

Now if one uses links to other peoples work, and lays no claim to that work as their own, what law have they broken? It’s a bit like putting a condition on reading a book, ” If you disagree with the analysis of the author, then you must think the author is a liar”.

I did not insinuate that Shane has stolen other peoples work, as you have insinuated, I simply asked him if he had thieved other peoples work, yes or no?
Now Shane wouldn’t know until someone complains.

This all reminds me of the AWU Affair, very similar, but in this case it is reputations being bandied around, not stolen money.

From my point of view, whatever is posted on the internet, is there for the reader, and belongs to the reader, as long as the reader does not profess to be the author. After all the internet is not free, we pay for it, like buying a book.

Further more, Realist, you seem to claim that Michael Smith has stolen content from The Aussie, is that your claim or theirs? See what I mean?

You obviously have no idea of the laws applying to plagiarism do you? If you post it under your name without permission of the author then you are guilty of an offence. The exception is the fair usage clause where a work can be quoted in part but must be attributed. As to the Australian’s content from behind their paywall I stated if it was with their permission it should be made clear. If it isn’t, it is theft pure and simple. And that is not a “claim”, it is simply the law. The Australian not pursuing or complaining about it doesn’t make it not a crime.

This is terribly disappointing to read at the start of the day. I have no real idea how the police work apart from knowing they want to be sure of their facts before they go to court. A royal commission is a good idea in theory but don’t they ususally work out the end game before they start and then tailor the parameters to make sure they get the right result? sara-Lee corruption, layer upon layer upon layer.

It was Forde’s own commentary on other readers at KCA that prompted my response and took me to the link to his own website that he’s published here, touting for business for paid speaking engagements (price on application).

The “rambling drivel” was on his own site and I really shouldn’t have used those descriptives here.

I havent been on this site before and thought your article was interesting and also the comments. I found Peter Forde’s comments good help in understanding why some people are against your article. Why does ‘Blackswan’ need to rubbish Forde and hiding behind a label too . Also whats Blackswans problem with Forde doing speaking engagements for a fee. Thats nothing to do with your story or the comments . Your right Shane, you do need a comment policy that deletes the unnecessary mean comments.

Lynne Borthwick – I didn’t set the tone of this thread – I didn’t use words such as “thief” or “liar” or “steal” or “angry” or accuse any reader/commenter of being a “follower” or a “socialist” or “rubbish” anyone for the anonymous tag they choose in the blogosphere.

Forde, after agreeing with Dowling’s opinion, took it upon himself to criticise and offer a psychoanalitic opinion of other readers and their motives in agreeing with him (or not), as the case may be.

He begins … “And they are, without doubt, both unjust and completely wrong in their judgments and reactions.”

Who is he to declare that other opinions are “unjust & completely wrong”?

In seeking to find out what his lofty credentials might be, I went to his website. I could have chosen to word my response a little differently as Shane suggests, but if any contributor seeks to attack and discredit other readers’ comments they can expect a return-of-serve or go play in another sand box.

even though the criminal charges against gillard are at the point of being completly flawed its still going to be the worst landslide defeat at the next election and that will be because of your relentless effort in bringing the truth about the whole thing and because of that the people are now awake to the poison of gillard and the labor party

Prosecution cases are won, not just lost, on far worse credibility issues in criminal cases every day where prisoners and other low/poor-credibility witnesses testify or are themselves litigants (eg. drug couriers testifying against their crime bosses, prisoners testifying against fellow inmates). This case should be no different, if it is genuinely being investigated in an unbiased fashion. The credibility of Wilson, et al cannot and should not have any greater or lesser bearing than the credibility of Gillard, et al. A completely unbiased investigation would put the credibility of both sides to the ultimate test in a court of law.

Any in-depth investigation of this will put the credibility of the union movement under the spotlight. Right now they have a lot of power and it would not suprise me if they are at least partly behind the suppression.

A dozen fraud squad detectives and a budget to enable them to reach witnesses and do evidence gathering wherever they need to go from Victoria plus Western Australia at least investigating related matters. A former legal secretary interviewed in Queensland and later brought to Victoria for further questioning. Witnesses and evidence includes court documents and AWU documents and former executives’ statements. Recently the Acting Commissioner for Police would not confirm or deny that the PM is involved, would it not be reasonable to expect a denial if that was the case.

Very disappointed in your post. The documentary evidence that Michael Smith puts on his site is an eye opener for all Australians. I look forward to the PM being interviewed by the Victorian Police – and I am sure many of those that they have already been interviewed have provided some further evidence of fraud.

If Julia is happy to lie to Ben Fordham and his listeners about the reality of her being under police investigation, surely nothing she says on this matter can be trusted at face value then the documentary evidence and paper trail automatically carry a higher weighting so far as evidence is concerned.
The police prosecutors will have a field day with this.

Shane, one and a bit years on from your article and the web is certainly closing around Gillard!

When a defendant lacks credibility and this can be proven, the defendant can engage the best lawyers in the land to busily attempt to undermine the credibility of witnesses but the torch will always be directed back onto any defendant that is a proven liar.

Follow this site via Email

Enter your email address and click on the follow button below to follow this website and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,367 other subscribers

Email Address

If you would like to support this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donation page above for other options. Thank you for your support.